Not looking to stir up trouble, but instead showing both sides of the argument. The link is to a story from some time ago.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/…/goodbye-tanks-how…/
When it was happening, many arm-chair generals were wringing their hangs in agony. Why was that? When the USMC moved away from super heavy armor. AKA tanks. Point one, they are focusing more on PACCOM and no longer want to be just a “second army”. Also described as returning to the sea. Point two, for all their weight inconvenience (hard to transport, hard to move across the beach, too heavy for most local bridges), they are pretty easy to kill on the modern (near peer) battlefield.
Tanks will always have their place where large armies could meet face to face (Fulda Gap as one theoretical example). But don’t kid yourselves, there are military planners and thinkers all around the world watching what is happening to armor in Ukraine very, very closely. Actually the watching started with the 2006 Second Lebanon War and Hezbollah’s effective use of ATGMs and things really got turned up to 11 when all the Turkish owned, German made Leopard tanks were getting blown away by John McCain’s buddies (former) in Syria.
The infantry squad has taken back some of the initiative against armor.
Food for thought. Nothing more. The war in Ukraine will end one day. The lessons will be discussed for decades.
Video – USMC dropping armor.
Russian tank killed in Ukraine.
The UK’s top attack NLAW. Range 800 meters. We’ve come a long way from the almost point-blank engagement ranges of the previous century
Sincerely,
Marky
www.John1911.com
“Shooting Guns & Having Fun”
Areas of focus: Defense and National Security, Modern Light Weapons, Small Arms, Weapons Training.
- State Police Agencies Ban The SIG P320 - November 17, 2024
- Why a Stevens No 35 Target - November 8, 2024
- Stevens No 35 Target – First Shots - November 3, 2024
